IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v114y2025ics2214804324001666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-making styles and cognitive biases: Experimental results from a Korean sample

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Bum Seok
  • Kim, Woosub
  • Min, Jae H.

Abstract

This study aims to identify which decision-making style is more prone to judgment errors induced by various heuristics by categorizing subjects into five decision-making styles: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. Specifically, we measure the frequency of judgment errors using the three heuristics of representativeness, availability, and anchoring and adjustment for each decision-making style by presenting 343 participants with several decision tasks. Logistic regression analysis is employed to discern the distinctive characteristics among the five decision-making styles. The results show that cognitive biases caused by using the heuristics differ based on individuals’ decision-making styles, suggesting that these styles are associated with their respective judgment error types. The experimental results of this study can support individuals in making more rational decisions by helping them understand which cognitive biases are likely to occur based on their specific decision-making style.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Bum Seok & Kim, Woosub & Min, Jae H., 2025. "Decision-making styles and cognitive biases: Experimental results from a Korean sample," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:114:y:2025:i:c:s2214804324001666
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2024.102329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324001666
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2024.102329?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:114:y:2025:i:c:s2214804324001666. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.